Atheism is a faith.

[RandFan]

Having been a believer and one who used to say that Atheism was a belief I would like to say how I see the difference.

Aside from spending at JREF and discussing it from time to time I don't organize my life around not believing. I have no dogma. I hold all truths provisionally. If better evidence comes along I'm willing to change my mind. I don't use atheism to accept anything blindly or assert something is true based solely on my "belief" in atheism.

Put simply, atheism doesn't manifest itself like faith in any recognizable way. It's not a philosophy just a denial of irrational beliefs and skepticism of faith based claims.

Having once believed that atheism was simply the flip side of religion I now know that is silly.

 

[H'ethetheth]

This is a difficult post to interpret. You quote Rufo's "No belief that there is a God is the default position. Belief that there is no God is not" followed by my response, including a re-statment of the conundrum, which obviously wasn't what Rufo was referring to. All you seem to be agreeing with is Rufo's "No belief ..." which lacks all substance. I doubt that's what you meant.

On the probably reasonable assumption that you're actually having a go at said conundrum, good for you.

The conundrum involved belief, not supreme beings which is probably what you mean by "God". Its first incarnation involved "religion" - still not "God". If I wanted to I could give you a long and tedious runaround just on that one point. I won't, but my advice is never give the bastards an opening - and I speak as a right bastard in appropriate circumstances.

"Constantly not believing in God" implies an active mode, whereas in fact atheism is an attribute. In a Universe that did not contain the concept of a supreme being nothing could actively not believe in one. It's contradictory. It only makes sense in terms of an observer from another, god-concept-containing Universe (such as ours). The attribute of not having belief (or religion or faith or god or vague undisprovable sort-of-whatsit) would still be valid. Which would be atheism. Ergo atheism is not a faith/religion/belief/conjecture, since it can be demonstrated to exist in a Universe lacking any of them.

Your comment "Deep" lead me to think you disagreed with Rufo, but I might have missed your point and you might have missed mine.
All I meant to say is that the distinction Rufo and others made between 'not believing X' and 'believing not X' is a valid distinction. The former is possible and in fact necessary in a universe without belief. The latter is impossible by definition.

All the same, nice try. You're not one of the lost. Serially mispelled no doubt, but not obviously lost.

I'm glad you think so, though maybe next time you could put it in a non-condescending manner.
Also, I think I'm "mispelled" only once.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's useless to try to explain the fallacy of equivocation to Huntster. Either he's too stupid to figure it out, or he knows it's a fallacy and prefers the dishonest approach to discussion. I think it's a combination of both. After all, he's admitted that he'll simply sling poo if he can't come up with a decent argument. That's what he's doing now, slinging poo. It stinks.

I'm sure Huntster lies in bed when he sleeps, so he must be a liar.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Atheism by itself (I don't believe in god(s)) is not a faith.

Strong atheism (no god(s) exists) is a faith.

However, even if atheism is not a faith, it is obviously a 'substitute good' for faith- it functions in exactly the same way in terms of providing a worldview for its user.

 

[CFLarsen]

Atheism by itself (I don't believe in god(s)) is not a faith.

Strong atheism (no god(s) exists) is a faith.

Depends on how you got to "no god(s) exists". If you say "There is no evidence of a god, so, based on that, there is no god(s)", then it is not a faith.

E.g., it is not a faith that there are no fairies. We know that there are no fairies. We've looked, we can't find them. Likewise with any other paranormal phenomenon: We've looked, we can't find it.

However, even if atheism is not a faith, it is obviously a 'substitute good' for faith

Nonsense. A naturalistic view is not a "substitute good" for a religious belief. It is the other way around.

- it functions in exactly the same way in terms of providing a worldview for its user.

But they are not equal: A religious belief gives you a supernatural explanation of the universe. A naturalistic view is based on evidence. Evidence trumps belief anytime.

 

[hammegk]

No, the thread is about atheism being a faith, not a belief. They do not necessarily mean the same thing. Apparently you only know how to read the dictionary literally, but the difference between connotation and denotation continues to escape you. You seem to think that all beliefs are faith, yet belief also means just to hold an opinion. So therefore, all opinions must be a faith as well.

Other than Thought Exists, which does not require faith, that's 100% correct.

This is just nonsense.

That is your belief ... or dare I say... "faith"?

 

[Z]

Other than Thought Exists, which does not require faith, that's 100% correct.


That is your belief ... or dare I say... "faith"?

Actually, the only faithless statement is "Experience exists". Whether there's thought or not is a matter of faith.

 

[hammegk]

If you accept experience without experiencer ...

I'd say Thought is the name we reserve for experiencers, given some level of perceived-as-physical complexity in what we term 'lifeforms'.

Of I have no idea what actual Thought and Experiencer implies; the existence thereof is the key.

 

[pgwenthold]

Always God, God, God, God.... Same old, same old. I'm getting bored with this. Why don't people start more interesting threads like "A belief that there are no women with four boobs is still faith" ? What's more interesting in a God than in a woman with four boobs ?

"What's the extra hooter for, Al?"
"The one on the back for dancing."

(granted, it was only 3 boobs, but the idea is the same)

 

[Taffer]

hammegk, you are so immaterial!

 

[I less than three logic]

Other than Thought Exists, which does not require faith, that's 100% correct.


That is your belief ... or dare I say... "faith"?

So, hammegk, would you prefer a flushing toilet, via running water and plumbing, or an outhouse if you were to build or purchase a new home?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I agree. He/she does not know, because they cannot, so they must believe, disbelieve, or remain indifferent.

Wrong. The absence of belief is not a belief.

Correct. It is indifference, or disbelief.

In all three cases, it's a matter of faith, the lack of faith, or indifference, but it is not knowledge.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I agree. He/she does not know, because they cannot, so they must believe, disbelieve, or remain indifferent.

Remaining indifferent still does not believe. It is still atheism. Atheism is defined in the negative.

Indifference is more agnosticism than atheism:

–noun 1. the doctrine or belief of an agnostic.
2. an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.

Atheism is in the negative, but still requires faith, or belief:

–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

You either believe or you do not, and anything that is short of "I believe X" does not believe.

Correct. You believe, you don't believe, or you are indifferent, because you cannot know.

 

[Taffer]

Correct. It is indifference, or disbelief.

In all three cases, it's a matter of faith, the lack of faith, or indifference, but it is not knowledge.

No, Huntster. A lack of belief is not the same as disbelief. To use my previous example, X=~Y is not the same as ~(X=Y).

 

[Taffer]

Indifference is more agnosticism than atheism:

Atheism is in the negative, but still requires faith, or belief:

Correct. You believe, you don't believe, or you are indifferent, because you cannot know.

Please Huntster. You are being intellectually dishonest if you think he meant 'faith' by 'belief'. Yet another reason why arguing from definition is a fallacy is because words are often used to have different meanings. In this case, 'believe' is being used as 'think'.

 

[Huntster]

Wow you are dense. Just what do you think atheism means?

Yet again:

–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

"A" is a prefix meaning "not". Atheism means exactly "not theism". I know you hold dictionaries as some sort of authority, but perhaps you should learn your language.[/quote]

I don't like your dictionary, with your single entry. It isn't a proper authority.

Dictionaries are just books with a list of words with their most common meanings among the general public, but not necessarily all meanings or even the most correct meanings.

Keep squirming.

If you knew what the parts that make up the word meant, how the word came to be, and why it was intended to mean what it means, you’d most likely run into this problem less often.

I don't have a problem. You do.

 

[Taffer]

I don't like your dictionary, with your single entry. It isn't a proper authority.

No dictionary is an authority. The only authority is the commonly accepted definition for the discussion at hand.

Keep squirming.

I don't have a problem. You do.

That isn't how it look from here, but whatever.

 

[I less than three logic]

Indifference is more agnosticism than atheism:



Atheism is in the negative, but still requires faith, or belief:





Correct. You believe, you don't believe, or you are indifferent, because you cannot know.

Still spouting your nonsense from the dictionary I see. Agnosticism: “a”, a prefix meaning “not”, gnosis means “knowledge”, and ism means doctrine, theory, or a system of principles. So, agnosticism is the theory that you can not have knowledge. That’s it, and there are plenty of things one can be agnostic about than just the existence of god or gods. Agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism; it is not a three way split, one can believe or not believe regardless of whether they think they can have knowledge or not. Theism is the belief in the existence of god or gods. Atheism, “not theism”, is anything, and that means anything, that is not “the belief in the existence of god or gods”. Indifference is not “the belief in the existence of god or gods”, so indifference is atheism.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Yup. You/ve used the word improperly.

Claims you.

Yup, and supported with the black letter defining operating manual of the English language.

You have to argue against the arguer's definition, or you won't get anywhere.

I have done so, supported by the black letter defining operating manual of the English language.

Secondly, please explain why a lack of belief is a belief?

It is still based on the fact that knowledge is not there - a lack of evidence - uncertainty - the need for faith.

From a purely logical view point, I do not claim theists to be incorrect, I just do not have that belief. I have no belief in the existance of a god, therefore I am an atheist.

You believe that there is no God, or disbelieve in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Quote:
I claim facts, I support my claims with evidence, and you do not.

A definition is not a fact. It is one interpretation of the meaning of a word.

It is a fact that those interpretations (stated in two ways) are recorded in the dictionary of the English language. It is also a fact that you have written opposition to that without a single reference from any other authority whatsoever.

There are many. We are obviously using a different definition. Who is to say who is right?

The dictionary, which is the black letter defining operating manual of the English language.

This is why you must argue from a common definition.

Yup. And I reject the definition that you insist must be used, because it is flawed and unrecognized by authority.

 

[Taffer]

I have an idea, why don't we play Huntster's game for a moment? This, Huntster, is why an argument from definition is a fallacy:

Atheism

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of deities. <snip>
2. The doctrine or belief that no deities exist.
3. The absence of belief in deities.
4. Godlessness; ungodliness; immorality.

Look, my dictionary agrees with me and disagrees with you! Therefore, you are wrong!

By the way, Huntster, you may wish to view this page.

Atheism is the disbelief[1] in the existence of deities.[2][3][4] It is commonly defined as the explicit (i.e., conscious and deliberate), positive rejection and denial of theism;[5][6] however, others—including most atheistic philosophers and groups—define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities[7][8][9] (cf. nontheism), thereby designating many agnostics and people who have never heard of gods, such as newborn children, as atheists as well.[10][11] The former, narrower usage defines atheism positively, as the belief that no gods exist; the latter, broader usage, however, defines atheism negatively, as the absence of belief in gods. In recent years, some atheists have adopted the terms strong and weak atheism for the former and latter, respectively, to clarify whether they consider their stance one of positive belief or of negative unbelief.[12]